Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Lets see, I bought a few mini's, some dye packs, bank space, the pirate costume for my Asura when hes strutting around town, and lvl 80 transmutation stones. Probably spent more than I should but I'm enjoying the game and the money isnt lacking.

Report this post

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.

Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.

A monthly fee - forced additional fees

F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store

B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.

You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?

Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.

Report this post

How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.

Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?

I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.

I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.

It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.

As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.

Report this post

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.

Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.

A monthly fee - forced additional fees

F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store

B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.

You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?

Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.

So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.

Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.

The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.

Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.

Report this post

The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.

And? It's their money to spend. I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month. I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time. Gamers can make up their own minds. End of story.

If a game has 1 million players and an average cost of $15 per gamer (aka sub model) it is a cost to all gamers of $15 million for a month of that game.

If the same game has 1 million players and an average cost of $21 per gamer it is a cost to all gamers of $21 million for a month of that game.

That means the company just got to profit more on the same amount of work and that is spread down to the gamers themselves. Some will pay more directly out of pocket, others will have to grind more to compete with those who paid more and in the end everyone does/pays more to be exactly how they would have been in the other model.

Pay attention to the part in yellow. If someone doesn't want to grind, that's up to them... though I'm not sure why you're using GW2 to support your argument, since there is absolutely no reason to spend money to remain competitive, and F2P's have been doing worse than this for years.

Take Allods for example. Remember how they made the cash shop almost a necessity to enjoy the game? And look what happened to them. If it ever comes to the point you say it will, people will stop paying or just avoid the game altogether. Even in the rare case they don't and are happy to shell out the $$$, it won't be because of ANet. Far less honest payment plans exist right now. I think you worry too much, or at least you worry about the wrong games getting one over on fans... people are mostly buying BAG SPACE, and when you can do it by spending time in-game, you can't blame ANet if some people take shortcuts. It's called smart business.

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.

Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.

A monthly fee - forced additional fees

F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store

B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.

You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?

Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.

So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.

Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.

You also can buy gems with in game gold... please keep this in mind.

The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.

Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.

The options should be:

Subscription based game

Free to Play game with store

B2P game with no store/no subscription

GW2 takes two of those models which means increased cost to users.

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.

Yes, in GW2's buy to play model you pay $60 up front and get access to all the content. You pay less with GW2's system.

A F2P forces you to spend money in the store, it intentionally hampers enjoyment to do so. Sure... you can suffer through and say at leasts its free but... I don't see much point in that. I can play a "f2p" that will in the end force me to pay through the nose to be competitive in PvP, to enjoy the game, and in some even use Global chat lol. Things of this nature are why F2P is terrible for gamers.

I think the issue seems to be you don't quite grasp how these models work, if you like I don't have a problem explaining them to you.

Report this post

How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.

Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?

I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.

I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.

It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.

As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.

You are extrapolating gw2 income without having a clear trend on which to base the extrapolation

Report this post

The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items".

But the question is, how many of those F2P games allow you to get the same bonuses (bag space, character slots) through in game gold? Not any that I can recall.

Actually Vindictus is pretty good in that regard. Most important cash items (as in gameplay affecting) are tradeable via market place (meaning if the item is unwanted regardless of the money spent to acquire it the price wlll go doown....), those that aren't it's perfectly legal to "gift" items, so you can acquire the rest through that means. Also none of the content is gated, and new profs/chars are free on updates come with an extra account slot. Really you have to take it by a game by game basis rather than by payment models.

The elephant in room in this thread is that many p2p mmo's also have cash shops, some with cosmetics, and some with boosts. So the argument is pointless. Look at individual games not payment models, in these sorts of comparisons. All games of a certain payment model don't do the same things...

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

yeah ive spent about 20 bucks on gems and used rest of in game money for gems...I will spend about 20 bucks am onth in real money to support the game as long as I enjoy it...servers will not pay for themselves as well as having employees.

So if you enjoy it and can afford to even spend a few bucks every contribution helps towards the future of gw2

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.

Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.

A monthly fee - forced additional fees

F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store

B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.

You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?

Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.

So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.

Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.

You also can buy gems with in game gold... please keep this in mind.

The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.

Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.

The options should be:

Subscription based game

Free to Play game with store

B2P game with no store/no subscription

GW2 takes two of those models which means increased cost to users.

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.

Yes, in GW2's buy to play model you pay $60 up front and get access to all the content. You pay less with GW2's system.

A F2P forces you to spend money in the store, it intentionally hampers enjoyment to do so. Sure... you can suffer through and say at leasts its free but... I don't see much point in that. I can play a "f2p" that will in the end force me to pay through the nose to be competitive in PvP, to enjoy the game, and in some even use Global chat lol. Things of this nature are why F2P is terrible for gamers.

I think the issue seems to be you don't quite grasp how these models work, if you like I don't have a problem explaining them to you.

I'm making complete sense.

With F2P you pick up the game and start playing - $0. If you run into content you want to unlock later you pay $10-$15. You've now paid $10-15.

GW2 - you pay $60 up front. You have already paid more.

In both F2P and GW2 you can pay to unlock more pack/bank storage and more character slots. You've still paid more in GW2.

GW2 has top level gear that costs lots of gold. It intentional hampers the rate at which you can gain gold (and recently dialed back the gold you could grind out in the more profitable ways to hamper players more). Now a way you do this faster is to buy gems and trade them for gold to unlock that top level stuff.

In a F2P they hamper you and have you buy stuff to get rid of the hampering. Again you have still paid more with GW2.

Most F2P games let you grind out everything that isn't the gated content, just as GW2 let's you grind out gold if you don't want to buy gems and trade. You're playing some truly crappy F2Ps if you're running into gear that you can only get buy buying in the store, and this comes from someone who doesn't like the F2P model to begin with.

In the end, you will have paid more with the GW2 model because you had to pay $60 up front.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by wayubb

yeah ive spent about 20 bucks on gems and used rest of in game money for gems...I will spend about 20 bucks am onth in real money to support the game as long as I enjoy it...servers will not pay for themselves as well as having employees.

So if you enjoy it and can afford to even spend a few bucks every contribution helps towards the future of gw2

How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.

Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?

I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.

I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.

It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.

As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.

You are extrapolating gw2 income without having a clear trend on which to base the extrapolation

I am using a group of people who participated in a poll where they've said exactly how much they've spent in GW2 and shown how much that group would have played in a subscription game without a store. The result is that group has spent 1.4x as much as they would have if GW2 was subscription based.

How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.

Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?

I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.

I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.

It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.

As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.

You are extrapolating gw2 income without having a clear trend on which to base the extrapolation

I am using a group of people who participated in a poll where they've said exactly how much they've spent in GW2 and shown how much that group would have played in a subscription game without a store. The result is that group has spent 1.4x as much as they would have if GW2 was subscription based.

That is true but a good conclusion cannot be made about the data because there is no reason to assume that people will spend the same amount every month. I'm just saying that more data is needed to make a good conclusion or say that B2P is more expensive.